On a case I am working on, a related component is that a person was an inpatient at a local hospital, that the person was given an injection by a nurse, that subsequent to the injection the nurse accidentally punctured herself with the same needle.

The patient was required to submit to blood borne disease testing, including aids.Patient was told that this testing was a legal requirement. Any comments?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Quote:

Unfortunately there are cases in Massachusetts where the courts have held that the mere inadvertent visability [sic] of a concealed firearm is enough to cause apprehension and bring forth the charge of "brandishing".

I remember back in the seventies, during the oil embargo, some gas station attendants were wearing holstered pistols in plain sight to discourage crass behavior and outright violence at the pumps. Those guys were publicized in the papers and no arrests were made. Also, in some gun shops, clerks pack guns in plain sight.

Any violations here?

What if the person who inadvertently flashes a concealed weapon is a plain-clothes officer shopping at the local market on his way home off duty?

I agree that the pendulum has swung too far as to what consitutes "brandishing" in the case of a concealed firearm. The permit with the endorsement to carry for protection and life of property in Massachusetts does not prevent concealment.

If a man is walking down the street, with valid permit, and he unbuttons his jacket on a hot day, I cannot conceive this as being a threat or brandishment.

As Van pointed out, during the 70's and long before that, it was common to see holstered weapons displayed.

The current trend of anti-gun mania persists, and as is quite evident today, political and social proponents can sway the balance of power and influence what we perceive are our freedoms.

Lay persons are now well aware of this by the now famous 5 to 4 split decisions of the Supreme Court.

I am sure that Panther is well aware of the law being infuenced by legal fictions employed to create an end result when all else fails.

To Van, sensei

As for the right of the gun dealer who on his own premises and properly permitted carries holstered a non concealed firearm, why not.

Are his customers their to buy children's clothing or bibles?

I think that in Massachusetts, the now infamous rule of the "reasonable man" would rule out brandishment.

Creative thinking by prosecutors have enlarged the "dangerous weapons" category.

A recent case in Massachusetts ruled that a concrete sidewalk was a dangerous weapon!

Well they may have been justified under the circumstances of the perp having slammed the victim's head into it repeatedly.

But was the weapon the concrete or the perp's hands?

The cases on concealed weapons in Massachusetts have escalated in recent years to the extent that the pocket parts of the statute books recent cases reported exceed the original text. Oh well, they will soon reprint the updated book and send it to the office for about $60.00.

If I had more time I would make a list of the categories found to be in the dangerous weapons class in this Commonwealth.

The patient was required to submit to blood borne disease testing, including aids.Patient was told that this testing was a legal requirement. Any comments?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As UN-PC as this will sound... the patient obviously didn't claim protected status based on sexual orientation. Seriously, even the hospital can't make you have any tests done that you don't voluntarily agree to. IMNSHO, the patient was successfully bluffed.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I remember back in the seventies, during the oil embargo, some gas station attendants were wearing holstered pistols in plain sight to discourage crass behavior and outright violence at the pumps. Those guys were publicized in the papers and no arrests were made. Also, in some gun shops, clerks pack guns in plain sight.

Any violations here?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No violations. IF someone is properly permitted and given permission to carry openly (either personally or as part of the job) on a business owner's private property, then that can't be construed as brandishing. Just as one can openly carry in one's own home and on one's own property without it being brandishing. (Threatening someone to get off of your property while openly carrying could get you in trouble in this bastion of Socialism, but merely carrying can't... yet.)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Quote:

What if the person who inadvertently flashes a concealed weapon is a plain-clothes officer shopping at the local market on his way home off duty?

It's happened. As I've said before, I have a number of friends who are LEOs. When they carry concealed (plain-clothes or off-duty) they have a propensity for being much less careful about it than us mere private citizens. One even told me once that he wanted people to know what that "bulge" was. So... One evening a group of us went out for dinner and the LEO in the group is careless. His (not-very-well) concealed weapon became visible while we were waiting in the bar area for our table. A woman patron went to the management (unbeknownst to us) in a complete panic that there was a "man with a gun" there! A while later, still waiting to be called for our table, a pair of on-duty officers approached us in the bar. Their first words were, "keep your hands where we can see them". (talk about embarassing... ) My LEO friend asks what the problem is and they ask him if he's got a gun... He says, "of course, I'm a cop" and very gingerly gets out his badge. Management was told that we were "OK", but we were asked to leave anyway since it had caused another patrons uneasiness. We did.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Quote:

Will he be judged by a different standard than the ordinary citizen?

With nothing other than personal opinion to base this on (and since my legal source for actual cites and cases is currently unavailable at the GCAB meeting), I would say most definitely YES! It was my impression that had it been a private citizen that night in the restaurant, the person would have been in the proverbial "deep do-do".

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Van Canna:Interesting. Say you are HIV positive. What duty do you owe to a person about to be engaged in a sports action or self defense action where no lethal response is indicated?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Legally? None as far as I know.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Quote:

And if you become contaminated by a sparring opponent's blood or by a street assailants' , would you really feel okay by continuing to have sexual relations with your wife?

It depends...

With a street assailant... NEVER... NO way, no how!

With a sparring opponent... depends on if and how well I know the person... Generally, I'd say the same precautions are in order, but if I know the person, I'd be more likely to make the decision based on what I know about the person and that might very well lead to a comfort level that is acceptable to me.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Quote:

Do you really feel comfortable that hard arm rubbing and pounding carries no risk of blood contamination?

Do people break the skin when they do arm-pounding and arm rubbing?!? Ouch...

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum